What
does the DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) party stand for? Progressive
values would be a standard answer. When Mike Erlandson
announced his candidacy for Congress in the Fifth District,
he said: To
win for progressive values, you have to know what youre
doing. Formerly the partys state chair, he had been outgoing
Congressman Martin Sabos top aide for many years. Erlandson
lost the party's nomination to Keith Ellison who went on to win the
election.

The
word progressive works like a charm in circles of the Democratic
party. But does it have practical content? In todays context,
it may be that progressive means, as Paul Wellstone said,
being part of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
In other words, these are not new Democrats or people who
compromise with the Republicans. They are true blue Democrats who are
idealists.

But,
again, what is the policy content of progressive values? Lets
start with the dictionary definition. Websters unabridged dictionary
defines progressive as a person who is a progressive,
especially one who favors political progress or reform. This dictionary
defines progress as improvement or an advance
toward perfection or to a higher state. In other words, the progressive
believes in improving society. However, anyone would be for that. It
depends on what each person believes to be a better society.

It
used to be that leftist political types believed that society was moving
inexorably toward a more perfect state. Some believed that the progression
of society from capitalism to socialism was scientifically predetermined.
Others saw the social-welfare state as the culmination of society. The
word progressive connotes moving forward and onward.
Society was moving forward and onward toward a higher state; and political
progressives would be in the vanguard of persons pushing for that change.

But
then came Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, defying the consensus of
intelligent political opinion. These were reactionary conservatives
flying in the face of historical trends. Lo and behold, history moved
in their direction. Today, the driving force of political change in
the United States is conservative. Liberal politicians are scrambling
to keep up with the changes. Communism is dead. The welfare state is
being dismantled. Conservatives, not liberals, seem to be the ones who
know what they want and have a program.

An interesting fact is that liberals today seem ashamed
of that label. Few politicians identify themselves as liberal; progressive
is the preferred term. For some reason, political liberalism has become
associated with the idea of taxing and spending without limit. (But,
of course, President Bush, a nominal conservative, is the big spender
par excellence.) The dictionary definition of a political liberal
is one who advocates greater freedom of thought or action.

Historical
context

Back
to the idea of being politically progressive. Three times during the
20th century major political figures in America ran for president as
the candidate of a progressive party.

The
first and most successful was former president Theodore Roosevelt. When
his hand-picked successor William Howard Taft reversed Roosevelts
conservation policies and brusquely pushed through his own nomination
at the Republican convention in 1912, Roosevelt bolted the party. He
ran for president as the candidate of the National Progressive Party
(sometimes called the Bull Moose Party) in 1912, finishing
second behind Woodrow Wilson but ahead of Taft. This partys platform
included womens suffrage, direct primaries, initiative & referendum,
and recall of elected officials. The first two planks were later achieved.

The
second presidential candidate to call himself a progressive
was Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin. Originally a Republican, Senator
LaFollette opposed U.S. entry into World War I. After the war, he opposed
the League of Nations and the World Court. He also advocated shifting
the burden of taxation to the rich. Fighting Bob LaFollette
was the Progressive Partys candidate for President in 1924. He
received 5 million votes in the election but died soon afterwards. His
Progressive Party died, too.

Again,
in 1948, former Vice President Henry A. Wallace campaigned for President
as a progressive, backed by communists and other extreme
leftists. He polled 1,150,000 votes, mainly from New York state. This
brand of politics wilted during the McCarthy era.

Taken
as a whole, progressive politics seems to be a stance taken by mavericks
who object to positions taken by the political establishment. It is
left-of-center with a populist orientation. The progressives have been
people who believed that their politics would improve society and improve
the lives of average Americans. Does this describe what is happening
in the DFL or Democratic party today? I think not.

Not
a Friend to the Average Citizen

The
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, which is the state affiliate
of the Democratic Party, evokes an image of populist farmers battling
the railroads or of labor unions in their early days of struggle. In
the battle between poor and rich, workers and management, this party
takes a stand on behalf of impoverished, powerless people. But, in fact,
the Democrats are beholden to well-heeled special interests. Their policies
have often hurt economically disadvantaged persons. The party is less
a cause than a collection of past causes that have
become demanding constituencies. Like the Republicans, this party has
become a coalition of special interests, dependent on large contributions
to finance its increasingly expensive campaigns.

Where
the Republicans might draw upon private businesses for financial support,
the Democrats rely on labor unions, trial lawyers, and nonprofits. Rich
people and foundations, providing large pools of other peoples
money, are sympathetic. Not infrequently do wealthy individuals such
as Mark Dayton or Kelly Doran run for high office under the banner of
the DFL party. The DFLs early front-runner for Attorney General
this year, Matt Entenza, is married to a top official of United Health
Care, a for-profit corporation which services nonprofit HMOs. In 2004,
Entenza and his wife, Lois Quam, contributed $600,000 of their own money
to Democratic causes.

Is
it a sin to be rich? No, Republicans would be first to say it is not.
But the health-care industry is a sick sector of the economy, consuming
15% of GNP and 27% of the state budget. Rapidly rising health-care costs
have pushed large companies such as General Motors toward bankruptcy.
How does United Health Care (UHC) fit into the picture? It charges higher-than-average
fees and administrative costs to Medica from which it obtained
a management contract without competitive bidding. Anderson consulting
claimed that UHGs processing fees were 26% to 40% higher than
the industry on a per-unit basis, its 35% profit margin was well above
the industry average, and its substandard service cost Medica
$10 million in losses, according to an article in City Pages, an alternative
newspaper.

It
was Bill Clinton, the New Democrat, who rammed NAFTA through
the Congress with promises of pork-barrel spending to please Congressional
hold-outs. It was he who spearheaded welfare reform targeted
to societys economic and social underclass. A contributing editor
to Minneapolis' Pulse newspaper writes from a leftist perspective: The
greatest obstacle to change in America is the Democratic party and it
needs to be destroyed. The Democratic Party is a graveyard of every
progressive social movement: farmers, labor, blacks, women, gays, seniors,
Hispanics, and the environment.

In
Minneapolis and St. Paul, DFL-controlled local governments are chronic
abusers of TIF-district financing, eminent domain, and building condemnations
for reasons other than health and safety. Well-heeled developers such
as Dick Brustad and municipal-bond brokers such as Rebecca Yanischs
husband work in close cooperation with elected officials, scratching
each others back. City inspectors work closely with the police
to target the owners of buildings linked to criminal activity. On the
theory that problem properties cause crime, city officials
direct housing inspectors to find something wrong with the buildings
and sometimes condemn them.

The
St. Paul police ordered Nancy Osterman, a city resident who had formerly
used illegal drugs, to infiltrate a group of current drug users and
inform on them. Osterman refused, fearing for her own and her childrens
safety. Then the city turned housing inspectors loose; they peppered
her house with work orders. One inspector told Osterman she had to sell
the house to a named associate for $40,000 or he would make sure that
it was demolished. The house was torn down on March 23, 2006. DFL mayor
Chris Coleman called this demolition of a structurally sound building
a commitment to safe and livable neighborhoods. (Read
the complete story.)

The
point is that the DFL party no longer represents the little guy (or
gal) but has become an arrogant, entrenched monopoly in the cities of
Minneapolis and St. Paul. The element of democracy seems
to be missing from its agenda. Its more idealistic members tend to gravitate
toward the Green Party. This has inspired the Democratic establishment
to seek legal action to deny Ralph Nader access to the ballot; or, in
the city of Minneapolis, to redistrict the Ward boundaries so that both
Green incumbent city council members in 2005 would be running against
other incumbents. One would think that a progressive agenda would include
the idea of presenting voters with a full set of choices.

Bill
Hillsman, the advertising strategist behind Paul Wellstones upset
victory for U.S. Senator in 1990, has said that the Democratic
Party would rather maintain a self-perpetuating organization than win.
Their standard operating procedure, he said, is to tell rich persons
who want to run for office as a Democrat first to raise a lot
of soft money for the party. Hillsman warned: Dont
be fooled - theyre not going to put any of that money back into
your race unless you toe the party line and it looks very winnable.
The Democrats have plenty of money to run strong races in those
25-40 (Congressional) districts (where the outcome is in doubt). But
they hold that money over the heads of the candidates as a carrot and
a stick. They tease them with it, and then they say, But youve
got to play ball. You get a purity test.

I,
Bill McGaughey, have personal experience of the partys practice.
In 2004, I entered the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary
by completing an application and paying a $2,500 filing fee.. On the
way to South Carolina, I telephoned a political reporter for the Greenville
News. He told me that my name had been removed from the primary ballot.
It turned out that the chairman of the Democratic National Committee,
Terence R. McAuliffe, had exercised his authority under rules for the
party's 2004 national convention to declare that I was not entitled
to obtain delegates at the convention because I was not a bona
fide Democrat. If I was not entitled to receive delegates, my
name could not appear on the state ballot.

State
law in Louisiana, on the other hand, guarantees an open primary ballot.
I went on to campaign there in February and March 2004 in the Democratic
presidential primary and finished fifth among seven candidates. (Read
more about the campaign.) To me, that was democracy in action. Regarding
the decision in South Carolina, it seems odd that a political party
that uses the term "progressive" to describe its aims is now
committed to eliminating maverick candidates from such competitions,
even small-timers such as myself who posed no real threat in the primary
election.

An Extinct Volcano: Labor Unions

Does
the Democratic Party have an idealistic core including some progressive
elements? It may be that many Democrats, especially at the grassroots,
are idealistic. But that is not the spirit of the party at higher levels.
The movers and shakers, like most experienced political types, are power
hungry. The organization feeds on the spirit of past movements that
have hardened into demanding constituencies.

In
the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, organized labor was a movement. This
was a time of general poverty when industrial workers organized themselves
into unions, conducted strikes, and won wage increases and benefits
that built the American middle class. What made labor a movement in
those days was its core of idealists who, while advancing selfish interests,
also connected with the larger community. In its 1947 strike against
General Motors, the United Auto Workers argued that the company could
afford both increased wages and price stability for consumers.

Today,
most unions have been in place for years. Labor has shifted its attention
from grassroots organizing to winning concessions from government through
its friends in the Democratic Party to whom it contributes money and
supplies campaign volunteers. Even if the unions continue to provide
a much-needed service to members, their idealistic luster has dimmed
compared with the old days.

A
reason is that, after many years of successful bargaining, labor unions
have given their members substantially higher wages and benefits than
what nonunion workers enjoy. In a given strike, the demand for still
higher wages or for preservation of existing compensation do not seem
justified to non-union workers who also work hard but do not receive
such a return. The union model of an idealistic or "progressive"
movement breaks down as the wage disparity between union and nonunion
workers increases. Union members seem more like members of a privileged
group than persons fighting for the betterment of society as a whole.

There
is an additional problem in labors fastest-growing sector: public-employee
unions. Here union members are employed by government bodies whose managers
are elected officials. To the extent that labor is involved in election
campaigns that have put them in office, the elected officials face a
conflict of interest. They have a responsibility to the public to bargain
with the union to minimize costs while they also have a debt to the
union that helped get them elected. Some politicians respond by "giving
away the store."

Another
Extinct Volcano: The Civil Rights Movement

The
Civil Rights movement has defined the Democratic Party since the 1960s.
The DFL Party embraced it when Minneapolis mayor Hubert H. Humphrey
delivered a stirring speech at the 1948 Democratic National Convention
urging support for a Civil Rights plank. The movement to advance civil
rights for African Americans is, however, just the beginning of a chain
of similar movements to secure similar rights for other groups of people
who saw it as a model for their own social and political progress.

The
African American Civil Rights movement has its roots in slavery, the
U.S. Civil War, Southern reconstruction, and the Jim Crow era of segregated
society. After African Americans had served in the U.S. armed forces
in World War II, black athletes such as Joe Louis and Jesse Owen became
widely admired, Emmett Tills murder stirred international outrage,
and the Montgomery bus boycott lifted Martin Luther King Jr. to a position
of community leadership, a political consensus emerged, supported both
by labor and business, that something had to be done to overcome the
racial inequalities in U.S. society.

It
may be that John F. Kennedys election as President, in which the
issue of anti-Catholic prejudice was raised, set the stage for a broader
and more lasting attack on racial prejudice. Kennedy had gained black
support by his phone call releasing Martin Luther King from jail. Then
came the Freedom Riders, the 1963 March on Washington, the Selma march,
and activities. When President Kennedy was assassinated in November
1963, the new president, Lyndon Johnson, made Civil Rights legislation
a priority. Black Americans received full voting rights. Fair housing
laws were enacted. The federal government was flexing its muscle to
undo segregationist policies.

Such
measures are understandable in terms of a political movement which had
its roots in real grievances - the indignity of southern segregation,
inferior schools for blacks, discouragement of black voting, tolerance
of southern-white violence - but more was to come. In an effort to create
a racially equal society, the politicians decided that black Americans
needed to be given special help to repair the effects of past discrimination.
From that came presidential orders instituting affirmative action.
The Nixon administration proposed set-asides for minority contractors
to make sure that a certain percentage of public contracts went to such
groups. Anti-discrimination laws created a new legal concept, the protected
class, which gave extra protection to minorities in a system of
law that professed to treat people equally.

In
the 1960s, northern blacks rioted and burned sections of large cities
such as Los Angeles, Newark, Minneapolis, and Detroit even while the
legal reforms sought by the Civil Rights movement were being enacted.
Faced with violence and a hostile political environment, most whites
clammed up. White Americans became a passive silent majority
as accusations of "white racism" flowed fast and furiously.
Meanwhile, newly empowered blacks and a vocal minority of whites in
education, politics, the law, and journalism has pushed the Civil Rights
agenda in all aspects, especially speech. This has led to an intimidating
system of thought control known as political correctness.
All kinds of dishonest discussions have since taken place. No Democratic
politician can hope to get nominated or elected who does not toe the
racial party line.

In
the South, on the other hand, there has been a dramatic political realignment
starting with South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmonds defection
to the Republican Party in 1964. Since then, the Democratic solid
south has become a stronghold for the Republicans. The electorate
both north and south is polarized by race with blacks supporting the
Democrats and whites by a smaller percentage supporting the Republicans.
Because there are more white than black voters, this trend has tended
to favor the Republicans. But the Democrats can take comfort in demographic
predictions that by the year 2050 less than half of the U.S. population
will be white.

In
the meanwhile, the Democrats make inroads into the white vote by enlisting
women, gays and lesbians, and immigrants into a coalition of groups
following the Civil Rights model of politics. The most numerous group
would be women. This effort may have fizzled. While women tend to be
more liberal than men politically, they are far from being a cohesive
voting bloc. The National Organization for Women (NOW) lost credibility
when it supported Bill Clinton and other politically liberal males accused
of sexual wrongdoing and sided against the female trailer trash
who were the victims. Yet the pro-choice position on abortion remains
a litmus test for Democratic politicians.

The
question of illegal immigration is todays hot political topic.
The Democrats eye immigrants, both legal and undocumented, as a political
constituency; they are courting this bloc of voters with the standard
Civil Rights type of argument. The Republicans are of two minds. One
group, aligned with the business community, encourages immigration as
a source of cheap labor. Another group resents the fact that our borders
are being routinely violated. The fact of illegal entry into the United
States is for them a major stumbling block.

A
majority of Americans feel uneasy about the agenda of democratic politics
and the fact that it has been advanced through the courts rather than
through legislatures after public debate. It has helped to establish
the Democrats as a party of cultural elites. This may help to explain
why Democratic candidates are afraid to express their views openly on
such subjects. If the Democrats told the full truth about themselves
and their aims, they would alienate that group of white voters - "closet
racists", so to speak - who are in the majority.

That
does not stop party operatives from delivering racially tinged messages
to narrow groups. When the chairman of the Democratic National Committee,
Terence McAuliffe, addressed a group of black newspaper publishers at
a gathering in New Orleans, the publishers were interested in how much
money the Democrats would spend on advertising in their publications.
McAuliffe replied: I know we (Democrats) cannot win without the
African American vote. I look forward to working with all of you and
your publications to make sure were getting the message out because
I know theres not a more effective avenue through which to get
our message to the African-American community ... You will see an unparalleled
investment in your newspapers. This was McAuliffe, the bag man,
speaking: Give us favorable, extensive reporting and we'll give you
the cash.

What
we have then is not racial equality, not a sensible and humane undoing
of segregationist policies, but a system of one-sided political values
that threatens and intimidates whites. We have a new malignancy of thinking
that centers on the word racism. Racism means exclusively
white racism since by the prevailing definition blacks are incapable
of it. Racism equals prejudiced feelings plus power and whites have
all the power, argument says. Racism is therefore not the prejudiced
thoughts of individual whites but institutional racism,
the racism of white society. Whites are" privileged" by virtue
of being white, regardless of what they do. And so, white people in
America are born with a kind of original sin - damned if they do and
damned if they dont. This is what has become of the Civil Rights
movement and its ideals.

The Bigot

We
have reached a point today that what a person thinks or says about race
or a related category can be considered a crime, more heinous even than
an act of violence. We call this a hate crime - a crime
accompanied by malicious thoughts or speech directed at a protected
class. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress
shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech yet Congress
has enacted hate crime legislation that makes politically disfavored
speech an element in a certain type of crime.

It
is not just race that elicits the venom of political correctness. Sexual
preference is another area. Again, it makes for politics of the double
standard. Political liberals argue that we should adopt a live
and let live attitude toward sexual orientation. What two consenting
adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is none of the public's business.
However, adding sexual orientation to the list of officially protected
classes changes the picture considerably.

A
conservative columnist, Katherine Kersten, put her finger on the problem.
Once sexual preference is cast in the mold of a victimized class, then
anyone who speaks of such people in less than respectful or supportive
terms of individuals in that class becomes, as she put it, a bigot,
adding that in America today, its a serious thing to be
a bigot. You can lose your job if you display your bigotry in the work
place.

What
is anti-gay bigotry? Kersten gave an example. An actress named Jada
Pinkett Smith gave a speech at Harvard in which she uttered these words:
Women, you can have it all - a loving man, devoted husband, loving
children, a fabulous career ... You can do whatever it is you want.
This remark did not please members of Harvards Bisexual, Gay,
Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance. A spokesperson complained
to the Harvard Crimson: Some of the content was extremely heteronormative
and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable. Smith was forced to
apologize.

Across
the river, in Boston, a superintendent of public schools sent a memo
to staff members during the controversy about the Massachusetts Supreme
Court ruling on gay marriage. Referring to the profound impact
on our civic life and discourse of this decision, he warned his
subordinates that the district displayed zero tolerance
for discrimination and hateful speech regarding
gay marriage or sexual orientation. This school superintendent stated
that students and staff members who breach the policy may be expelled
or terminated, Kersten wrote.

Straight
white people in the privacy of the voting booth know that it is Democrats
more than Republicans who advance this agenda. It's a reason why people
hesitate to call themselves liberal - a liberal being one
who advocates greater freedom of thought or action. Everyone is
afraid.

This
Orwellian world of the Democrats is scary. Its a disease of the
national spirit. It's nearly impossible to talk about race or gender
issues in a reasoned way. Sooner or later, someone on the "wrong"
side of the argument will be demonized - called a "racist",
"bigot", "homophobe", or whatever. Such terms carry
the baggage of lynching and other injustices that blacks have experienced
in the past. Thus the Civil Rights movement in its expanded version
has progressed from a fight for justice to a politics of racial division
and hate.

The
Republicans

The
reason that many voters secretly resent that the Democrats have taken
politics down into a cesspool of demographic strife may help to explain
why the Republican candidate for President, George W. Bush, won election
in 2000 and reelection in 2004. Because this article is about "progressive"
politics, present-day Republicans hardly enter the discussion.

It
should be said, however, that Republicans, too, have their problems.
Republican officeholders have rewarded their wealthy patrons and clients
in the insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil and gas industry,
and other sectors of business while squeezing the average citizen. They
have pursued policies of free trade that have decimated the nation's
industrial base. This party of big business can be faulted with policies
that have slighted honest labor and contributed to destruction of the
middle class. Economic exploitation and policies favoring the rich are
their particular source of shame.

Having
pushing the nation into financial difficulty and invaded the
nation
of Iraq, the Bush-Cheney administration may be among the worst administrations
in American history. Let that comment be a warning that criticism
of
the Democrats does not imply that current-day Republicans are the answer.
We're in a unique political situation.

Back
to Progressives

The
problem is this: If a progressive is someone who supports progress
toward
a better society, how can a person be a progressive (except for an
ineffective one) if there is no progress? Not only is there none
today;
but America
is in a process of decline unparalleled in its history.Only the years of the Buchanan administration rival
the incompetence and duplicity exhibited by our national leaders in
the Bush period.

To
quote Peter Peterson, President Nixons commerce secretary: Both
political parties are politically incorrigible, he said. They
are not facing any problems; they are running from them. They are locked
into a politics of denial, distraction, and self-indulgence that can
only be overcome if ... you take back this country from the ideologues
and spin doctors of both the left and the right.

The
new factor is, of course, the election of Barack Obama as President.
Already his election has had an impact on racial politics in
America - a positive impact by most accounts. It has already
improved America's image in the world. Less clear at this point
is whether President Obama and his advisors can rescue the sinking
U.S. economy. Obama has been an effective political leader in
the television age, but governing effectively requires other
skills, especially with the great economic challenges that we
face.

In
conclusion, a true progressive needs a vision of a better society
as
a precondition for political action. Without having constructive ideas,
politicians are engaged in pure posturing or pretending that
past causes
are still alive. We need to be engaged in todays realities, abandoning
histories and ideological arguments that divide. I think both political
parties may have outlived their usefulness. There needs to be a third
party that rises to meet the problems and opportunities of our day.
There may need to be a Gold Party or
maybe a revival of the progressive
Republican tradition.